WAR: US Used White Phosphorus on Iraqi Civilians-Report

well its not like it was used to attack people, its been used to illuminate night time battles for a long time, its not any surprise or an unknown use.

nor are we bound by the ccw or any part of any treaty regarding this type of explosive.

Wel well well........................

if this is true, when are people going to put a stop to it.


How can anyone defend this action..how can anyone excuse it by saying the US never signed against its use.

Who the heck do they think they are....and when is the world going to say enough......

You know I just spent two days camping by a secluded lake with nature all around me... and I sat there the whole time and wondered how long it would last....



[edit on 10-11-2005 by Mayet]

That is my point - the film depicting this is pure propaganda with several noticeable flaws. I do not believe that phosphorous was used as a chemical weapon.

Our military would have much more advanced means, should there have been complete lawlessness and disregard of the Geneva Convention in Fallujah. Using phosphorous as a "chemical weapon" is the equivalent of using bottle rockets, given today's advanced weaponry.

Originally posted by shots
This story has been debunked several times and it is totally false.

Here is the official state Department statement it points out more then one or two errors made by the press and those making the accusations

usinfo.state.gov...

That only really says this to debunk the article:

" (Islam Online).. It sourced this claim to Al-Quds Press, which cited only anonymous sources for its allegation."

then goes on to say it's not true because we're saying so.

Basically all of their big 'terror threats' and 'sources' are unidentifiable and could be fake too.

If you believe the Presidents office then you'll believe what ever they say but they really just expect you to believe them as usual.

I'm the last person to want to give the Bush Administration any credit, but, I saw this film, and it didn't seem to prove anything to me. It wasn't even a slick and deft use of the footage. It was very obvious and amature.

If something happened there, which, I'm not convinced it didn't, this film doesn't prove it for me.

The only term I can think of to use to explain dogs and other beings without apparent outside injury is fallout. Breathing in the dust/powder from this WP is deadly too....and if not deadly can make you extremely ill. Just because the stuff is dispersed in a certain area doesn't mean that some won't escape the most horrific effects.

ok,
Wp White Phorphorus rounds. They have been used for decades since the Korean war by all militaries world wide. Are they "incendary" in the sense that the story is attempting to put forth? Are they used to burn people? NO
Let's take a look at what WP is used for:

Background: White phosphorus has been used commonly by the military as an incendiary agent or as an igniter for munitions. It commonly is found in hand grenades, mortar and artillery rounds, and smoke bombs.
Munitions-quality white phosphorus commonly is found in solid form. When exposed to air, it spontaneously ignites and is oxidized rapidly to phosphorus pentoxide. Such heat is produced by this reaction that the element bursts into a yellow flame and produces a dense white smoke. Phosphorus also becomes luminous in the dark, and this property is conveyed to "tracer bullets." This chemical reaction continues until either all the material is consumed or the element is deprived of oxygen.
Most injuries associated with white phosphorus are the result of accidents due to either human or mechanical error.

www.emedicine.com...

If the dogs' skin and coats were intact, why weren't there scores of people exhibiting the same? One would think the film-maker (and I use that term loosely) would want to display more evidence by showing dead people with NO TRACES of bodily injury. No burns. Clutching their throats. Blue faces and lips.

If, according to the speaker in the documentary, "White Phosphorous" causes skin to melt, why was the deformed toddler blessed with a great complexion?

This gets hokier and hokier. Especially the fact that we used to burn phosphorous strips for fun in chemistry class back in The Day.

Blue lips are a sign of lack of oxygen....being burned from the inside will not always cause that...death can occur simultaneously without that sign.
This just gets so far beyond the realm of logic, that I'm not going to keep pointing these things out....*sigh*

Originally posted by Umbrax
That is, unless your strategy is to cause pain and suffering.

If I was an evil pentagon war monger plotting to use chemical weapons against the innocent and peacable citizens of falluja, I wouldn't drop flares on them, I'd douse their city with VX, Sarin, Mustard Gas, practically anything else. I mean, these guys were willing to break the treaties on Chemical Weapons, and chose........flares???? Doesn't make strategic sense. Also, what target are they supposed to be hitting? People in a field? Yer telling me that there wasn't any artillery, planes, or cruise missiles, that could hit them, and proably do a better job of killing them in the meantime? Than flares?

The dual use of WP as a weapon and as an illumination or concealment method provides plausible deniability if evidence of its use is found.

Isn't napalm actually legal in this situation?
It just doesn't make sense to dump out all your flares on the fly to do this. And if this was a prepared phosphorous weapon, that doesn't make sense either, because, again, napalm would be far far more effective.

WP is not just used in flares. It can be put into missles, grenades, canitsters of various sorts...

There is also the issue of DU (depleted Uranium). This will last for over a thousand years...several thousand years possibly.

DU (Depleted Uranium) is actually a WMD according to the UN, so US of A accuse Iraq to have WMD's and then use WMD's against Iraq civilians

About the White Phospor - well, rather it that the napalm, because napalm create a stunning visual affects and leave proof of usage. Alternative, that disapers sounds a good alternative to me, is not it?

The last U.S. "napalm" type weapon was destroyed in 2001. They are all gone, and had not been used since 1972-1973. (Incendiary chemicals were used as early as 1200 BC.)

Reports of use near Bagdad in 2003 were probably auxillary fuel tanks dropped from aircraft. Approximately the same thing as napalm.

The photographs and videos above do not show "White Phosporous" weapons exploding. The photographs and videos show WP aerial illumination flares being dropped.

There are no WP aerial weapons in the U.S. inventory.

There are WP grenades, mortar shells, and artillery shells.

WP was used in the Battle of Fallujah, from 8 to 20 November 2004. It was used to make the enemy troops run, and then regular artillery was fired at them.

White Phosporous is found in everything from road flares to toothpaste.

Not to bring up an old subject for no reason I thought this particular article was pretty interesting. Especially this comment from a soldier in Fallujah. The comment is very matter of fact. Considering the controversy here about the use of White phosphorus, I felt sharing was in order. Also the story in general is a very good and important read.

The assault on Fallujah began Nov. 8, 2004, when U.S. planes, using a combination of high explosives and burning white phosphorus, hammered the city in advance of the artillery push. Miller was under fire from the moment he stepped out of the personnel carrier.

See link for complete story

The War Within

[edit on 1/29/2006 by nativeokie]

The last U.S. "napalm" type weapon was destroyed in 2001. They are all gone, and had not been used since 1972-1973.

Not according to the USMC.

American jets killed Iraqi troops with firebombs – similar to the controversial napalm used in the Vietnam War – in March and April as Marines battled toward Baghdad.

Marine Corps fighter pilots and commanders who have returned from the war zone have confirmed dropping dozens of incendiary bombs near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris River. The explosions created massive fireballs.

Apparently the spokesmen were drawing a distinction between the terms "firebomb" and "napalm." If reporters had asked about firebombs, officials said yesterday they would have confirmed their use.

What the Marines dropped, the spokesmen said yesterday, were "Mark 77 firebombs." They acknowledged those are incendiary devices with a function "remarkably similar" to napalm weapons.

Rather than using gasoline and benzene as the fuel, the firebombs use kerosene-based jet fuel, which has a smaller concentration of benzene.

Hundreds of partially loaded Mark 77 firebombs were stored on pre-positioned ammunition ships overseas, Marine Corps officials said. Those ships were unloaded in Kuwait during the weeks preceding the war.

So apparently we were using something "almost exacly like napalm, but not napalm". How comforting. Not that I am certain that being incinerated by napalm is qualitatively any worse a fate than being shredded by a CBU, or perforated with small arms for that matter.